Ian Maedel

The self-represented applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired and that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by not giving sufficient weight to the OCF-19 completed by his family physician.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding the adjudicator properly weighed the evidence, including the respondent's expert reports, and made no error of law or fact.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied ongoing income replacement benefits, an award under Regulation 664, interest, and costs.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made errors of law and fact.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no error of law in the adjudicator's conclusion that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award ongoing benefits when entitlement and quantum were not in dispute.

The Vice Chair also found no error of fact regarding the award claim or the denial of costs, noting that the adjudicator's weighing of evidence and exercise of discretion were appropriate.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of the corporate appellant as a motor vehicle dealer and the individual appellants as salespersons.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the appellants be bound by the terms of the consent agreement, which allowed them to maintain their registrations subject to strict compliance conditions, including completing the certification course and barring certain individuals from dealership operations.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to refuse their registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The parties reached a settlement and applied under s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act for a consent order to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, binding the appellants to the agreed terms and conditions, which included strict compliance with the Act, disclosure obligations, and restrictions on the involvement of certain individuals in the dealership.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the appellant be bound by the terms of the consent agreement, which included a five-year period of conditions on his registration and a prohibition on applying to be a registered motor vehicle dealer.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The parties reached a settlement agreement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the appellant be bound by the terms of the consent agreement and closed the file.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealer and a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, vacating the scheduled hearing and imposing conditions on the appellants' registrations, including requirements related to premises, books and records, and disclosure.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding her statute-barred from disputing the denial of an income replacement benefit.

The Vice Chair held that section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act applies to extend limitation periods under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Applying the four-factor test for extending time, the Vice Chair found that the 13-day delay, caused by a paralegal's failure to follow instructions, did not prejudice the respondent.

The extension was granted, allowing the applicant to proceed with her dispute.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant attendant care benefits for meal preparation and medical benefits for Whole Therapy.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request regarding attendant care, finding the adjudicator properly weighed the evidence and applied the 'but for' causation test.

However, the Vice Chair granted the request regarding the Whole Therapy expenses, finding the adjudicator erred in law by relying on the insurer's previous approval of travel expenses to determine the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

The Vice Chair denied the Whole Therapy expenses because the applicant failed to submit a treatment plan prior to incurring the expenses, contrary to s. 38(2) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

In a preliminary issue hearing, the applicant requested production of the adjuster's log notes past the date of the Tribunal application, while the respondent requested production of the applicant's accident benefits file from a prior 2010 accident.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the log notes, redacted for privilege and reserves, finding them relevant to the ongoing adjustment of the claim and the applicant's claim for an award.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce the 2010 accident benefits file, finding it relevant to causation and the applicant's pre-accident condition.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted the respondent's motion to issue a summons for an investigator and adjourned the scheduled hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Motion Order that dismissed her request for costs.

The Tribunal found that it had made an error of procedural fairness by failing to consider the applicant's cost submissions in the original order.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request to review the submissions.

However, upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that the respondent's behaviour did not meet the high bar required for a cost award under Rule 19.1.

The applicant's request for $2,000 in costs was denied.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel agent under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed the proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

Prior to a hearing, the parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the appellant to withdraw its appeal and comply with strict conditions regarding trust accounts, business records, and personnel certification in order to maintain its registration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found her claims for income replacement benefits and housekeeping benefits were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its findings regarding the insurer's denial letters and the inclusion of the Right to Dispute Form.

The Adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, affirming that the January 7, 2011 correspondence constituted a valid denial that included the required dispute resolution form, and therefore the limitation period had lapsed before the application was filed.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he was substantially unable to perform his pre-accident employment as a Quality Inspector due to chronic pain.

The respondent terminated the IRB based on an insurer's examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, preferring the respondent's orthopaedic expert who found normal range of motion.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant successfully completed a physically demanding nursing clinical placement during the disputed period without requesting accommodation, undermining his credibility regarding the severity of his impairment.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision, despite being successful in obtaining an order barring the applicant's claim for accident benefits.

The insurer argued the adjudicator failed to consider its submissions regarding a 21-month delay in notification and its request for costs.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the limitation issue moot since the claim was already barred, and noting that costs are a discretionary remedy with a high threshold that was not met.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude transcripts from a criminal proceeding from being admitted as evidence at an upcoming hearing for statutory accident benefits.

The applicant argued the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion as premature, holding that the admissibility of evidence should be determined by the hearing adjudicator who will have a full appreciation of the facts.

A second motion to extend the production deadline was granted on consent.

The applicant sought income replacement and housekeeping benefits following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits in 2011.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal in 2018, more than seven years after the denial.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial was valid and contained the required dispute resolution information.

The Tribunal held that the application was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which had lapsed in April 2014.

The application for these benefits was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking production of unredacted adjuster log notes and an order declaring third-party property damage and bodily injury files inadmissible.

The respondent had denied benefits on the basis that no accident occurred and the applicant made material misrepresentations.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for unredacted notes but ordered the respondent to produce redacted log notes, including those of the third parties, with detailed explanations for each redaction.

The Tribunal found the notes were presumptively relevant to understanding the basis for the denial of benefits, and the respondent could not use privilege as a shield to prevent disclosing the reasons for denial.

The respondent insurer brought a motion for third party productions of the applicant's employment, placement, and education records from various hospitals and colleges, and for a stay of proceedings pending receipt of these documents.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal ordered summonses to issue for the requested documents, finding them relevant to the issues in dispute, including non-earner and attendant care benefits.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion for a stay, emphasizing the need for an efficient and timely resolution of the matter.

The applicant sought various medical assessments following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the chronic pain and physiatry assessments were reasonably required due to consistent medical evidence of ongoing ankle pain and the risk of progressive osteoarthritis.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for work site, psychological, attendant care, and function and impairment assessments, finding insufficient evidence to support their necessity, particularly given the applicant's independence in self-care and lack of documented psychological symptoms prior to 2014.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments for the approved assessments.